Interesting Gordon B. Hinckley Quote

[captain_nephi]

This quote was said during an interview with Larry King on the Larry King show. The entire transcript can be found at:

CNN Transcript - Larry King Live: Gordon Hinckley: Distinguished Religious Leader of the Mormons

This is just a clipping from the whole transcript:

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

Larry King: Should there be arrests?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.

Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers.

Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.

Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it.

Larry King: I'm giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were...

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

The quote I find interesting is President Hinckley's last, " I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal."

I don't think he is referring to fundamentalists having a "doctrinal right" to practice polygamy. They certainly do not. Is he referring to the practice in general?

So it has me a bit perplexed.

[Hemidakota]

He was mentioning the Mormon Fundamentals in practicing Plural Marriage...

[utcowboy]

The doctrine of Polygamy was removed from the earth and it won't be reinstalled until the Lord decides that it is needed again.

[HiJolly]

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

The quote I find interesting is President Hinckley's last, " I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal."

I don't think he is referring to fundamentalists having a "doctrinal right" to practice polygamy. They certainly do not. Is he referring to the practice in general?

I think he is doing just that, in reference to the practice of living polygamy. He is not saying it WAS not doctrinal, in the past, nor is he saying, it is not doctrinal in the Heavens. He is limiting the context of his speach in a very specific way, to adapt to the situation of a 5-second media sound bite. He referred to this later in a Conference talk, that we should not expect to get our doctrine from such media interviews.

Just my view....

HiJolly

[Guest Username-Removed]

It depends on your view of doctrine. Its not a part of current doctrine, but historical doctrine yes. I dont see that as confusing to me.

[captain_nephi]

It is just odd to me that he would "think" that it's not doctrinal. Because he is so adamant about "fundamentalists" not being Mormon, that I would expect him to say "it is not doctrinal" and not "I think it is not doctrinal".

I don't. It was simply odd.

But you are all probably right.

[Moksha]

It depends on your view of doctrine. Its not a part of current doctrine, but historical doctrine yes. I dont see that as confusing to me.

I think the quote is being questioned as to whether it means that polygamy was never really doctrinal, but instead was just a practice.

I would like to add, whether it was a practice or doctrine, it was certainly injurious to the Church.

[lilered]

Keep in mind that President Hinkley is responding in real time to Larry Kings question. Certaintly a case could be made that he could have perhaps stated in a bit more clearer to eliminate any doubt. In my view however, he responded to the question honestly and forthright. Polygamy is not doctorinal. He is speaking in the present.

[JonboySquarepants]

now i'm confused. the doctrine of polygamy is an eternal covenant, isn't it? though the practice of polygamy was stopped on earth, for whichever reason you choose to believe, it is still true and practiced in heaven, isn't it? i don't recall the church ever stating that polygamy was wrong and is not doctine.

[VisionOfLehi]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/11149-what-laws.html

Official Declaration 1

Articles of Faith 1

Those should do the trick.

[captain_nephi]

I think the fluid nature of prophecy I think sometimes makes things hard to nail down. There are more temporal situations that are sometimes taken to be eternal; there are situations that draw near to eternal principles, but pale in comparison (and the pale version is adopted as The Law); and there are some principles that evolve as generations of leaders are able to add further light and understanding by having stood on the shoulders of the spiritual giants that have preceded them.

I don't know if, as a church, we don't discuss it because we are embarrased of it or because we are afraid it offends a lot of people--in particular, the sisters.

[Guest Username-Removed]

.... or because we are afraid it offends a lot of people--in particular, the sisters.

WORD!

[prospectmom]

Excuse me?????

[Moksha]

I don't know if, as a church, we don't discuss it because we are embarrased of it or because we are afraid it offends a lot of people--in particular, the sisters.

Well, it is certainly not PC to speak of wanting a harem.

[Vanhin]

Well, he clearly means it is not an authorized practice at this time, and therefore not doctrinal. However, as long as it is a part of our canon of scripture, it is hard to claim it's not doctrine. It is in fact, official doctrine in principle only, not practice.

Jacob, in the Book of Mormon, affirms that it is sometimes authorized by God to "raise up seed" unto himself (Jacob 2:30).

And modern revelation describes it as an eternal principle of the priesthood, and the new and everlasting covenant. This from our current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. (132:61-62)

Joseph Smith was righteous in keeping this law, and so were all the others who were commanded and authorized to engage in plural marriage. However, it is not authorized for anyone at this time, and those who persist in justifying it's practice are doing so in defiance of the word of God as given to us through God's mouthpiece here on earth, and are therefore without doctrinal basis.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[inquirer_Jn1717]

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Then why practice it at all to begin with!?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Joseph Smith receive the revelation sanctioning polygamy while the LDS Church was still in Illinios, even though the practice had already been officially against the law for 10 years prior in that state?

Both the LDS Articles of Faith and Paul's letter to the Romans will tell you to obey State Law, because the ruling authority is put there by God with His authority. So why would God then tell the Church to do something contrary to the law of the land?

Didn't God arrange the first marriage as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Susie, Jane, Ellen and Lafonda? When the Patriarchs, or the kings of Israel, or anyone in the Bible practiced polygamy, did it lead to happy families or dysfunctional ones?

For non-LDS, the question of polygamy cuts straight to the credibility of the LDS Leadership, past and present, as far as being a mouth-piece for God.

Sorry if all that comes off as a shot-gun blast attack, I don't really mean it to, but what do LDS say to that sort of argument?

Edited July 2, 2008 by inquirer_Jn1717
the original wording left out a key point and was not very diplomatic.

[VisionOfLehi]

That makes me wonder what the government system was like back then.

Is it made illegal in the IL constitution?

Did IL have any way for local governments to govern themselves?

What about religious practices and tolerance of them?

Was their any sort of "appeal" process that could've happened? Was it unconstitutional to disallow it?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but here's another:

Are the laws of man to be obeyed before the Laws of God?

No. We believe in obeying the law, and being subject to rulers, but if the Lord gives a commandment, it's to be obeyed.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

That is equivocation. Worse, that sort of logic has lead to worse things in history.

The point is this: would God give us a law that contradicts that of our earthly rulers? ...

Romans 13:1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,

for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

[VisionOfLehi]

There are times when the unjust laws must be done away with. Times when obedience to the Lord means disobeying the laws of the land. Times when, even without the Lord's say so, that disobeying the laws are good.

I have two words for you: American Revolution.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

Are yo saying Illinois was unjust to make such a law against polygamy in the first place?

[inquirer_Jn1717]

does the state of CA say, "Stop on all red lights."

and then does God say, "Red means 'really fast!'"...?

[HiJolly]

Are yo saying Illinois was unjust to make such a law against polygamy in the first place?

Ya know, Inq, I wish I could get a sense of willingness to learn from you, or at least a willingness to understand, but I'm just not feeling it.

We all understand that the principle is that we should obey the law of the land. And (hopefully) we also know that sometimes, civil disobedience is justified.

Daniel of the Lion's Den comes to mind.

HiJolly

[Snow]

I think he is doing just that, in reference to the practice of living polygamy. He is not saying it WAS not doctrinal, in the past, nor is he saying, it is not doctrinal in the Heavens. He is limiting the context of his speach in a very specific way, to adapt to the situation of a 5-second media sound bite. He referred to this later in a Conference talk, that we should not expect to get our doctrine from such media interviews.

Just my view....

HiJolly

Of course that's not what he said (what you saying he didn't and didn't say). It just you interpreting his word in a way that fits in with your views on the matter. What he actually DID say is that it is not doctrinal and anything beyond that is speculation.

We are left to speculate why he choose to say that it - polygamy - was not doctrinal. Could it be because it was being practiced by fundamentalists? Of course THAT wouldn't be doctrinal just as the fundamentalist appointing a prophet or blessing the sacrament or baptizing their children wouldn't be doctrinal just as Catholics having a pope of saying the Rosary wouldn't be doctrinal. He went out of his way to specify that they weren't Mormon and had nothing to do with Mormonism.

So would he have said that polygamy practiced by people had nothing to do with Mormonism is not doctrinal? He was a very skilled and practiced speaker. I doubt he choose his language without much care or consideration.

[Snow]

The doctrine of Polygamy was removed from the earth and it won't be reinstalled until the Lord decides that it is needed again.

If at all.

The fact is that the Church's and Mormon's views on plural marriage has evolved considerably over time. At one time it was views as a requisite to the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom - for deification. That changed in the early 20th century and is no longer so considered. At one time the Brethren maintained that it would never be abandoned, but it was.

I wouldn't be surprised if ultimately the Church comes to understand it as a mistake. There are certainly a number of respected and influential Mormons who have that view.

[VisionOfLehi]

does the state of CA say, "Stop on all red lights."

and then does God say, "Red means 'really fast!'"...?

If God told me to speed through a red light, then I would. Is that likely to happen? No.

It's called obedience.

And, my thoughts on polygamy hardly matter. It's what the LORD says, not what I think.